Sunday, January 17, 2016

No Steps, as the Trustee of a Multi-Million Dollar Estate to Validate Documents? Hmmm

"That Judge Phillips knowing he is a material and fact witness and potential defendant of charges of Fraud By the Court in these cases who now has an adverse interest that reflects in his intent to deprive Eliot, his three minor children and his lovely wife of their fundamental due process rights.

Phillips has threatened Eliot and his wife Candice repeatedly with contempt for nothing other than to create false record, as the records of the hearings reflect because Eliot has accused Phillips and demanded his disqualification for in part being part of the improper Post Recusal steering and transfer of the cases by former recused Judge Colin (who recused 1 day after denying a disqualification motion that alleged FRAUD BY THE COURT OF COLIN) and Phillips rude and threatening behaviors reflected in the transcripts of the hearings appear entirely in retaliation and to suppress Eliot’s rights to fair hearings.

In the Proposed Order submitted by attorney Rose they now attempt to remove Eliot’s standing and his prior pleadings filed on behalf of himself and as Guardian of his minor children and remove his standing in the matters through this improper proposed Order without due process.

The Order Rose has prepared for Phillips to sign does not accurately reflect the truth of the proceedings and is designed to remove Eliot’s rights to his inheritancy through further denial of due process and procedure, even attempting Gag Orders and to suppress distribution of the December 15, 2016 hearing that exposes new frauds on the court and more.

That the Court should take JUDICIAL NOTICE and REPORT THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT AND NEW FRAUD ON THE COURT INFORMATION ADMITTED TO BEFORE JUDGE PHILLIPS UNDER OATH BY ATTORNEY ROBERT SPALLINA, the sole witness to the validity hearing, who has now violated an SEC consent Order for criminal securities fraud and insider trading before Judge Phillips by perjuring himself and more.

Spallina under oath admitted to new crimes, including fraud on the court, fraud on beneficiaries, mail fraud and more in the December 15, 2016 hearing and Spallina further perjured his testimony about not having pled to felony or misdemeanor charges.

The following information is cause for impeachment of Spallina’s testimony and voiding of the validity hearings ruling due to the criminal conduct learned and committed in the Court on December 15, 2015 by Spallina, a court appointed officer of the court and a court appoint fiduciary in these matters.

Therefore, immediate actions should be taken by the Court to notify proper authorities, including but not limited to, the SEC of the violation of criminal consent order that Spallina has signed as evidenced below, the FBI regarding the newly admitted mail fraud, the Sheriff department regarding the newly admitted Fraud on the Court, Fraud on Beneficiaries and their counsel and the misuse of a deceased person’s identity to close another deceased persons estate now fully admitted, the Inspector General of the Courts due to the Fraud on the Court and alleged Fraud by the Court, the Chief Judge and where the Court is the scene of fresh new crimes of continued Fraud on the Court in these matters this Court should disqualify itself entirely from the matters as it appears that one cannot investigate oneself or ones court without a MASSIVE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY;

On or about September 28, 2015, the SEC out of Washington, DC publicly announced Insider Trading and related charges in a separate action against Florida attorneys and Third-Party Defendants herein SPALLINA and TESCHER.

That SPALLINA pled guilty of criminal misconduct and the SEC Consent signed by SPALLINA states, “2. Defendant has agreed to plead guilty to criminal conduct relating to certain matters alleged in the complaint in this action and acknowledges that his conduct violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, Defendant has agreed to plead guilty to a one count information which charges him with committing securities fraud involving insider trading in the securities of Pharmasset, Inc. in a matter to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, (the “Criminal Action”).”

Further, in the SEC Consent signed by SPALLINA reads,
“12. Defendant understands and agrees to comply with the term of 17 C.P.R. f 202,S(e). which provides in part that it is the Commission's policy ''not to permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings." As part of Defendant's agreement to comply with the terms of Section 202.5(e), Defendant acknowledges that he has agreed to plead guilty for related conduct as described in paragraph 2 above, and: (i) will not take any action or make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis; (ii) will not make or permit to be made any public statement to the effect that Defendant does not admit the allegations of the complaint, or that this Consent contains no admission of the allegations; (iii) upon the filing of this Consent, Defendant hereby withdraws any papers filed in this action to the extent that they deny any allegation in the complaint; aud (iv) stipulates for purposes of exceptions to discharge sot forth in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.. §523. that the allegations in the complaint are true…”

SPALLINA then perjures himself in self-contradiction when he tries to claim that his law firm did not mail Fraudulent documents to the court and commits here further FRAUD ON THE COURT when he then slips up and admits that his legal assistant and notary public Kimberly Moran, already prosecuted in these matters for fraudulent notarization and who has admitted forgery of six persons in these matters then sent the fraudulent documents back to the court when he states;

10· ·BY MR. BERNSTEIN:
11· · · · Q.· ·And what was she convicted for?
12· · · · A.· ·She had notarized the waiver releases of
13· ·accounting that you and your siblings had previously
14· ·provided, and we filed those with the court.
15· · · · Q.· ·We filed those with the court.
16· · · · · · ·Your law firm submitted fraudulent documents
17· ·to the court?
18· · · · A.· ·No.· We filed -- we filed your original
19· ·documents with the court that were not notarized, and
20· ·the court had sent them back.
21· · · · Q.· ·And then what happened?
22· · · · A.· ·And then Kimberly forged the signatures and23· ·notarized those signatures and sent them back.

SPALLINA then claims that it is “standard operating procedure” for he and his clients to sign sworn Final Waivers under penalty of perjury with knowingly and irrefutably false statements and admitting that the April 09, 2012 Full Waiver (already referenced and linked herein) submitted to this Court by Spallina’s law firm in October of 2012 by Simon Bernstein, at a time after his death on September 13, 2012 and yet still acting as the Personal Representative, signed under penalty of perjury allegedly by Simon Bernstein and witnessed by Spallina, contained knowingly false statements .

Then SPALLINA had a deceased Simon file that alleged sworn document with the Court as Personal Representative on a date after his death as part of a Fraud on the Court and Fraud on the Beneficiaries and Interested Parties. SPALLINA states in testimony as follows,

Pages 108-110
17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Are you aware of an April 9th full
18· ·waiver that was allegedly signed by Simon and you?
19· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· That was the waiver that he had signed.
20· ·And then in the May meeting, we discussed the five of
21· ·you, all the children, getting back the waivers of the
22· ·accountings.
23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And in that April 9th full waiver you
24· ·used to close my mother's estate, does Simon state that
25· ·he has all the waivers from all of the parties?
·1· · · · A.· ·He does.· We sent out -- he signed that, and
·2· ·we sent out the waivers to all of you.
·3· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So on April 9th of 2012, Simon signed,
·4· ·with your presence, because your signature's on the
·5· ·document, a document stating he had all the waivers in
·6· ·his possession from all of his children.
·7· · · · · · ·Had you sent the waivers out yet as of
·8· ·April 9th?
…
20· ·BY MR. BERNSTEIN:
21· · · · Q.· ·April 9th, 2012, you have a signed full waiver
22· ·of Simon's that says that he is in possession of all of
23· ·the signed waivers of all of the parties?
24· · · · A.· ·Standard operating procedure, to have him
25· ·sign, and then to send out the documents to the kids.
·..
·1· · · · Q.· ·Was Simon in possession -- because it's a
·2· ·sworn statement of Simon saying, I have possession of
·3· ·these waivers of my children on today, April 9th,
·4· ·correct, the day you two signed that?
·5· · · · · · ·Okay.· So if you hadn't sent out the waivers
·6· ·yet to the --
·7· · · · A.· ·I'm not certain when the waivers were sent
·8· ·out.
·9· · · · Q.· ·Were they sent out after the --
10· · · · A.· ·I did not send them out.
11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· More importantly, when did you receive
12· ·those?· Was it before April 9th or on April 9th?
13· · · · A.· ·We didn't receive the first one until May.
14· ·And it was your waiver that we received.
15· · · · Q.· ·So how did you allow Simon, as his attorney,16· ·to sign a sworn statement saying he had possession of17· ·all of the waivers in April if you didn't get mine 'til18· ·May?
19· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· I think it's relevance
20· · · · and cumulative.· He's already answered.
21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· What's the relevance?
22· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· Oh, this is very relevant.
23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· What is the relevance on the issue
24· · · · that I have to rule on today?
25· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· On the validity?· Well, it's
1· · · · relevant.· If any of these documents are relevant,
·2· · · · this is important if it's a fraud.
·3· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'll sustain the objection.
·4· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· Okay.· Can I -- okay.
·5· ·BY MR. BERNSTEIN:
·6· · · · Q.· ·When did you get -- did you get back prior to
·7· ·Simon's death all the waivers from all the children?
·8· · · · A.· ·No, we did not.
·9· · · · Q.· ·So in Simon's April 9th document where he
10· ·says, he, Simon, on April 9th has all the waivers from
11· ·his children while he's alive, and you didn't even get
12· ·one 'til after he passed from one of his children, how
13· ·could that be a true statement?
14· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.· Cumulative.
15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sustained.

Finally, SPALLINA also perjures himself under sworn oath at the hearing when testifying to the status of his Florida Bar license, which at this time he is listed as “Not Eligible to Practice Law in Florida” when he states in the December 15, 2015 hearing,

That as for Ted being qualified as a fiduciary, the following passage from the December 15, 2015 hearing that Ted called for to prove the validity of the dispositive documents after his former counsel admitted criminal activities shows that Ted, who used this disgraced attorney Spallina as his star and only witness to validate the documents, did nothing to validate the documents himself as Trustee to protect the beneficiaries harmed by his former counsels actions, his friend and business associate when he states, under oath,